Miller v. Bonta 9th Ckt "assault weapons": Held for Duncan result 1-26-24

[blackrat]

Who decides when the stay is lifted? Benitez put the stay in place himself, I'm guessing he's not the one with the power to lift it or it would have been done so already.

Edit: my mistake, I see it was a 3 judge panel that put the stay in place.

[Maxa1]

Armed Scholar on YouTube said that Benitez sadly sua sponte imposed the stay on his order lifting the ban, and that's a reason why the 9th would bump it back to him.

Though Armed Scholar didn't comment, some have suggested that the 9th know he'll lift the stay, so they'll just quickly come up with a pretext to dismiss the lawsuit.

Do any legal eagles know whether Benitez can sua sponte remove his stay, or does he actually have to have the case sent back to him first?

[abinsinia]

Armed Scholar on YouTube said that Benitez sadly sua sponte imposed the stay on his order lifting the ban, and that's a reason why the 9th would bump it back to him.

Though Armed Scholar didn't comment, some have suggested that the 9th know he'll lift the stay, so they'll just quickly come up with a pretext to dismiss the lawsuit.

Do any legal eagles know whether Benitez can sua sponte remove his stay, or does he actually have to have the case sent back to him first?

Looking at the case,

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/5381/attachments/original/1622850515/Miller_v_Bonta_Opinion.pdf?1622850515

Because this case involves serious questions going to the merits, a temporary stay is in the public interest. This declaration and permanent injunction are stayed for 30 days during which time the Attorney General may appeal and seek a stay from the Court of Appeals. After 30 days, the following Order will take full force and effect:

I think it's not Benitez stay (expired after 30 days), it's the 3 judge panel which gave the stay so the have to remove it I assume.

[aBrowningfan]

Vacating the decision returns the clock to just before the last court issued their decision that is being vacated. So, we are back to CA-9.

The real trick here is lifting the stay because the stay was in place while CA-9 was considering the case that was a win for us at district level. If the stay is lifted, our win stands *while* the court works on the next steps, including the reconsideration in light of Bruen. If the stay for some strange reason remains, then we have to wait with the AWB in place until the court issues a new decision, which can take quite a long time.

Expect CA9 to find some way to keep the stay in place. Even if the logic for keeping the stay in place is contrary to NYSR&PA (winning party is generally referenced), litigating that circumstance will take at least another year or so.

[aBrowningfan]

That's the way I see it. If Miller gets resolved in favor of the Plaintiff, as it did at the Trial Court level, then the AW statute is pretty much toast.

But I always counsel against "counting your eggs before they hatch." We did get a very good Trial Court decision, and a very favorable supporting decision in NYSPRA. But Miller is still in play and we don't know how its going to turn out yet.

Toast as in the clock being moved back to before passage of the AWCA in 1989? Or?

[kuug]

Is the "Order Vacating and Remanding" in Rupp considered a "decision by this court in Rupp v. Bonta"?

Does this mean that "Miller v. Bonta" will move forward after 14 days (from 6/28/2022), assuming that parties requested appropriate relief (which I believe FPC did with 6/30/22: Motion to Lift Stay)?

From Miller v. Bonta, CA9 - "assault weapons" 6/21/21: Order Granting Motion to Stay Judgment Pending Appeal


From Rupp v Becerra (AWCA) 6/28/2022: Order Vacating and Remanding

[the_tunaman]

Please stop guys. Miller was held pending Rupp. Rupp was sent back to the district court because it did not have a ruling on the merits. Miller did have a ruling on the merits. Miller being held pending Rupp was on the basis that Rupp was further along than Miller, now that is no longer the case and Rupp is considered "resolved" at the circuit court level for the time being. Miller is going to either have it's stay lifted, it will be scheduled for oral arguments in front of a 3 judge panel, or sent back to Benitez(least likely option).

Who determines the appropriate course of action here?

[aBrowningfan]

Either they send it back to Benitez, lift the stay and schedule oral arguments, or keep the stay and schedule oral arguments


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Unless I missed something, the case was vacated and remanded back to the trial court (Benitez).

[rewireroy]

Okay, so the stay will either be lifted next week or we go to oral arguments at the end of August, right?

[keedba65]

Unless I missed something, the case was vacated and remanded back to the trial court (Benitez).

No that was Rupp. Miller vs Bonta is currently awaiting action on a Motion to Lift Stay filed and served on 6/30/2022.
The motion has requested immediate relief pursuant to Cir. Rule 27-1(3) and proposed 2 options, 1. lift the stay or 2, provides an expedited schedule for briefing, argument and disposition.
According to Cir Rule 27(a)(3)(A) a response must be filed within 10 days after service of the motion (there are exceptions, but I don't see any referenced).
I think I understand this correctly - appellants should respond or the court should grant/deny the motion soon (within 10 business days of 6/30/2022)

[rplaw]

No that was Rupp. Miller vs Bonta is currently awaiting action on a Motion to Lift Stay filed and served on 6/30/2022.
The motion has requested immediate relief pursuant to Cir. Rule 27-1(3) and proposed 2 options, 1. lift the stay or 2, provides an expedited schedule for briefing, argument and disposition.
According to Cir Rule 27(a)(3)(A) a response must be filed within 10 days after service of the motion (there are exceptions, but I don't see any referenced).
I think I understand this correctly - appellants should respond or the court should grant/deny the motion soon (within 10 business days of 6/30/2022)

That deadline should be next Wednesday if my count is correct, or next Friday at the latest.

[ar15barrels]

Unless I missed something, the case was vacated and remanded back to the trial court (Benitez).

You did miss something.
There are 2 different AW cases and you got them crossed up.

[ar15barrels]

Okay, so the stay will either be lifted next week or we go to oral arguments at the end of August, right?

Arguments at the end of august is a pipe dream dreamt up and placed in the petition to lift the stay as an option to not lift the stay.
There is nothing that would cause the court to actually grant that wish so they will go with the 3rd option which is to deny the petition and take their sweet time.

[keedba65]

Arguments at the end of august is a pipe dream dreamt up and placed in the petition to lift the stay as an option to not lift the stay.
There is nothing that would cause the court to actually grant that wish so they will go with the 3rd option which is to deny the petition and take their sweet time.

You are probably right that is what CA9 would want to do. If they deny the motion to lift the stay, would that denial be something that could be appealed to USSC?

[rplaw]

You are probably right that is what CA9 would want to do. If they deny the motion to lift the stay, would that denial be something that could be appealed to USSC?

They can file for an emergency writ of mandate on the basis that the denial to lift the stay perpetuates the irreparable harm currently being suffered by the people as a result of a rogue court refusing to obey the SCOTUS.

That request will go to Kagan who gets to say yea or nay on it.